The mother appeals. "'Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child'" (Walter v Walter, 178 A.D.3d 991, 992, quoting Greenberg v Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 629). "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is 'an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent'" (E.V. v R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, quoting Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-385). "Inasmuch as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the hearing court's findings in this regard" (R.K. v R.G., 169 A.D.3d 892, 894), and "[t]he court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (id. at 894; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174).

The mother appeals. " ‘Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child’ " ( Walter v. Walter, 178 A.D.3d 991, 992, 112 N.Y.S.3d 512, quoting Greenberg v. Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 629, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 ). "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is ‘an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent’ " ( E.V. v. R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, 85 N.Y.S.3d 84, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384–385, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213 ). "Inasmuch as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the hearing court's findings in this regard" ( R.K. v. R.G., 169 A.D.3d 892, 894, 94 N.Y.S.3d 622 ), and "[t]he court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( id. at 894, 94 N.Y.S.3d 622 ; seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ). Here, evidence was presented at the hearing to support a finding that the mother absconded with the children to Georgia, without the knowledge and consent of the father, and in violation of the court order enjoining her from moving with the children "beyond 75 miles from the children's present residence" (see Matter ofAnthony G. v. Stephanie H., 189 A.D.3d 615, 134 N.Y.S.3d 712 ;

The mother appeals. "'Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child'" (Walter v Walter, 178 A.D.3d 991, 992, quoting Greenberg v Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 629). "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is 'an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent'" (E.V. v R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, quoting Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-385). "Inasmuch as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the hearing court's findings in this regard" (R.K. v R.G., 169 A.D.3d 892, 894), and "[t]he court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (id. at 894; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174).

However, the father failed to establish that such a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child. "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is ‘an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent’ " ( E.V. v. R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, 85 N.Y.S.3d 84, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384–385, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; seePandis v. Lapas, 176 A.D.3d 837, 839, 111 N.Y.S.3d 667 ). Here, however, while the mother failed to comply with the father's parental access on multiple occasions, many of the other violations alleged by the father appear to have been caused by the parties’ confusion over the parental access schedule, which was remedied when the parties agreed to a specific schedule of alternate weekends during the proceedings.

However, the father failed to establish that such a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child. "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is 'an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent'" (E.V. v R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, quoting Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-385; see Pandis v Lapas, 176 A.D.3d 837, 839). Here, however, while the mother failed to comply with the father's parental access on multiple occasions, many of the other violations alleged by the father appear to have been caused by the parties' confusion over the parental access schedule, which was remedied when the parties agreed to a specific schedule of alternate weekends during the proceedings.

Under these circumstances, there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Supreme Court's determination concerning the father's parental access. The father contends that the mother should not have been awarded sole legal custody due to her alleged alienation of the children from him (see generally E.V. v. R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, 85 N.Y.S.3d 84 ). While the mother's actions in limiting the father's parental access with the children after the parties' separation should not be condoned, the totality of the circumstances provides a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination as to legal custody in almost all respects.

The record reflects that the father is in the best position to provide for the child's emotional development (seeMatter of Yu Chao Tan v. Hong Shan Kuang , 136 A.D.3d 933, 935, 25 N.Y.S.3d 339 ). Further, the court's determination was supported by the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator, which, while not determinative, is entitled to some weight (seeE.V. v. R.V. , 165 A.D.3d 736, 738, 85 N.Y.S.3d 84 ). CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, and after carefully considering the parties' testimony, including the in-camera examinations, and after considering the insightful testimony of Dr. Kaplan, and the positions of the attorneys for the subject children, this Court has no choice but to find that Husband has met his burden of proving that Wife has engaged in acts of parental alienation and that these acts and omissions have severely impacted his parental rights. See E.V. v. R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736 (2d Dept. 2018). The Court further finds that the pattern of conduct engaged in by Wife has severely impaired and damaged Husband's relationship with M. B and N. Band threatens to do the same to C. B. See Matter of Cooper v. Nicholson, 167 A.D.3d 602 (2d Dept. 2018); see also Sukul v. Sukul, 196 A.D.3d 661 (2d Dept. 2021).

However, the father failed to establish that such a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child. "Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is 'an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent'" (E.V. v R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, quoting Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-385; see Pandis v Lapas, 176 A.D.3d 837, 839). Here, however, while the mother failed to comply with the father's parental access on multiple occasions, many of the other violations alleged by the father appear to have been caused by the parties' confusion over the parental access schedule, which was remedied when the parties agreed to a specific schedule of alternate weekends during the proceedings.

"Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her [parental access] rights, is 'an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent'" (E.V. v R.V., 165 A.D.3d 736, 737, quoting Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-385; see Pandis v Lapas, 176 A.D.3d 837, 839). Here, however, while the mother failed to comply with the father's parental access on multiple occasions